View
230
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
http://webbutik.skl.se/bilder/artiklar/pdf/7164-450-3.pdf
Citation preview
2008
The Swedish Healthcare System: How Does It Compare with Other EU Countries, the United States and Norway?
Grafisk formgivning: forsbergvonessen Tryck: Åtta.45 • Foto, omslag: Jonas Ekströmer/Scanpix
Information about content of this report:Roger Molin, Phone +46 8-452 76 65Lena Eckerström, Phone +46 8-452 76 76
To order this report:Phone +46 8 644 71 48, Fax +46 8 644 76 78, Domestic calls: Phone 020-31 32 30, Fax 020-31 32 40 or www.skl.se/publikationer
ISBN: 978-91-7164-450-3
Layout: forsbergvonessen
Printing: Ljungbergs tryckeri
Photography, cover: Jonas Ekströmer/Scanpix
Contents
4 Preface
5 TheSwedishhealthcaresystem:howdoesitcomparewith otherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway? –asummary
6 Structureofthereport
7 Healthcaresystemsofthecountriestobecompared
8 Currentchangesinhealthcaresystems
10 ThreeinternationalcomparisonsthatincludeSweden
10 HealthConsumerPowerhouse
16 TheConferenceBoardofCanada
18 TheFraserInstitute
20 Acomparisonofcost-effectivenessin17countries –SwedencomparedwiththeotherEU15countries, NorwayandtheUnitedStates
21 Resourceconsumptionindex
22 Resultsindex
24 Cost-effectivenessindex
25 Sensitivityanalysis
30 Appendix
46 Listoffigures
47 References
4 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Preface
Swedish health care, which is financed primarily by tax revenues, consumes almost one tenth of society's total resources. Thus, it is vital for both pa-tients and all other citizens that the resources be used wisely and cost-effec-
tively. Cost-effective use of resources is also important given that the healthcare system faces major challenges as diagnostic and treatment methods rapidly im-prove. The more cost-effective the system, the better it is positioned to confront demographic challenges and take advantage of medical progress.
In the light of the challenges that healthcare systems face, the European Com-mission has stressed the importance of high-quality results for the entire popula-tion within the framework of economic sustainability.
The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) priori-tises the support of local authorities and regions in their effort to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of health care. As part of that initiative, the SKL joins the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHF) in publishing an annual Open Comparisons report of healthcare quality and cost-effectiveness. We also issue ongoing reports concerning produc-tivity trends in the area of health care.
One purpose of the various reports is to shed light on cost-effectiveness issues surrounding the Swedish healthcare system. One way of examining how well re-sources are used is to compare the cost-effectiveness of Swedish health care with that of other countries. This report compares the Swedish healthcare system with those of the other EU 15 countries (those that were members before the expansion in May 2004), as well as Norway and the United States.
This is the second report that SKL has published comparing Swedish health care with that of other countries. The first such report was published in 2005. Roger Molin wrote this report. Alessandra Cavalieri-Persson developed the indica-tors that appear in the Appendix. Mattias Elg and Lars Witell, both fellows at Linköping University, put together the cost-effectiveness index presented by the report. Consultant Sven-Eric Bergman gathered data about the healthcare systems of other countries and international comparisons.
Stockholm, June 2008
Håkan Sörman Executive Director, Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions
5TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Summary
The conclusion of SALAR's first international comparison in 2005 was that the Swedish healthcare system performs well in relation to other countries. That was true with respect to availability, quality and results. Meanwhile,
the costs were modest – in other words, Swedish health care was cost-effective. The conclusion was based on SALAR's indicator-based comparison, as well as comparisons performed in 2003-2004 by researchers and institutions in Canada, the Netherlands, the UK and France.
This report repeats the comparison, supplemented with cumulative indexes of results, costs and cost-effectiveness. In addition, the report presents three new international comparisons, performed in 2005-2007 by a Swedish company and two different Canadian institutes, that include Sweden.
This report concludes that Swedish health care stacks up well against that of the other countries. The cost-effectiveness index that we based on indicators of results and costs ranks Sweden third after Finland and Spain among the 17 coun-tries compared.
The three new international comparisons performed by other organisations also rank Sweden high: second (behind Australia) of 27 countries, third (behind Switzerland and Japan) of 17 countries, and sixth (behind Austria, the Nether-lands, France, Switzerland and Germany) of 29 countries. The various compari-sons include a total of more than 30 countries. The comparisons vary in their approach to weighing the different healthcare systems against each other, as well as measuring quality and cost-effectiveness.
The survey performed by the Swedish company Health Consumer Powerhouse (HCP) was the only one in which Sweden is not among the top three. HCP gives Swedish health care top marks in the areas of medical quality, availability to the general population and the introduction of new pharmaceuticals, but ranks its results for the outcome of waiting times so low that it comes in 6th out of 29 countries.
Thus, regardless of approach and the countries compared, Sweden consistently ranks relatively high. The main reasons are that Swedish health care produces excellent outcomes at a modest cost. In other words, its overall cost-effectiveness is good. The Swedish population gets a good return on the money that it invests in health care.
It is important to note that the above assessment is relative, that Swedish health care is cost-effective in comparison with other countries. The position of the Swedish healthcare system does not rule out the possibility that it suffers from significant inefficiencies and therefore has room for improvement.
Also important to stress is that the ranking refers to the overall healthcare system of each country. That the Swedish system ranks high does not necessar-ily mean that it works well in all respects. There are areas, such as waiting times for planned treatment, in which a number of other countries perform better. No country performs best in all areas.
6 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
The healthcare systems in the countries included in the comparison are each designed differently.One difference is in financing, the foundation of any healthcare system. Healthcare systems are ordinarily broken down according to whether their primary financing comes from taxes or various types of insur-ance. Insurance-financed systems are often less comprehensive in terms of the percentage of the population covered and that which the public commitment includes. But the difference between the various systems has narrowed over time as public financing has generally risen to over 75 percent in the insur-ance-based systems. The countries in both groups vary with respect to the degree of local/regional financing. Among the countries with decentralised financing are Finland and Sweden, both of which are tax-based, and Belgium and Austria, both of which are insurance-based.
National financing is predominant, a trend that has strengthened in recent years. Denmark and Norway, which had decentralised, tax-financed systems, have transitioned to national financing. Some countries like Germany and the Nether-lands, which had insurance-financed systems at both the national and local/regional levels, have moved more toward a centralised approach.
This report ranks Finland and Sweden, the two countries with decentralised, tax-financed healthcare systems, first and third in terms of cost-effectiveness. Spain, which is ranked second, has national tax financing but delegates respon-sibility for management and services to the regional level. The United States, whose system is most divided between the different levels and has the least public financing, ranks poorest.
Typical of the three countries at the top is that they have relatively few beds. That reflects the ability to restructure the system and introduce new medical technologies. That which obscures the assessment of Sweden are the long waiting times for planned, non-acute treatment. All Swedes have access to medical care but often have to wait too long for doctor's appointments and planned treatment.
Structure of the report
This report is broken down into three main sections. The first section discusses methodological issues in comparing different healthcare systems, as well as briefly describes the systems under consideration and the changes that have taken place in some of the countries over the past few years. The second section presents three international comparison that included Sweden: those conducted by Health Consumer Powerhouse (HCP) in Sweden, the Conference Board of Canada (CBC) and the Fraser Institute (FI) in Canada. The third section presents our indica-tor-based comparison of Sweden with the other EU 15 countries, Norway and the United States. The section also discusses indexes of results, resource consumption and cost-effectiveness for those countries. The report concludes with an appendix that considers each indictor separately.
7TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Healthcaresystemsofthecountriestobecompared
This report focuses on how well the Swedish healthcare system performs in com-parison with other countries. Many of the overall indicators of healthcare results that are common in international comparisons – such as premature death, life expectancy and infant mortality – are related not only to healthcare systems, but economic and social conditions as well. In order to minimise the impact of other conditions, the comparison is limited to the other EU 15 countries, Norway and the United States, i.e., industrialised Western nations with developed economies and circumstances that are fairly similar to Sweden. Relating healthcare results in these countries to costs enables an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of their systems.
Access to reliable, relevant data is always a problem when making interna-tional comparisons. As far as Sweden is concerned, it would be ideal to be able to compare Swedish health care with other countries on the basis of the same indicators that SALAR uses to compare different regions of the country. These Open Comparisons relate a large number of indicators of outcomes, availability of health care and patient experience to costs in order to assess cost-effectiveness. But inadequate access to data from the other countries prevents such a broad-cased, comprehensive approach. Above all, there are insufficient data about avail-ability of health care and patient experience, representing a serious limitation. The data is also inadequate when it comes to more specific indicators of quality, such as how often a procedure fails or how often the healthcare system causes patient injuries or infections.
In this regard, we have used material published by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) instead. The OECD Health Project was started in 2001 to develop indicators for comparing the performance of different healthcare systems. The goal is to contribute to improvements.
Despite the difficulties involved, it is increasingly common to compare and even rank various healthcare systems based on their performance and results. For instance, WHO's ranking of 191 countries in 2000 on the basis of expert assess-ments attracted a good deal of attention.
It was the first time that such a broad-based comparison had been performed between such disparate countries with completely different conditions and healthcare systems. The findings were surprising to many observers: countries not previously regarded as particularly successful wound up at the top of the list, and vice versa. Among the Western industrialised countries, the Mediterranean na-tions of France (1), Italy (2) and Spain (7) were ranked high, whereas Canada (30), Sweden (23), Denmark (34) and Germany (25) made a poorer showing. The United States, which has the most expensive healthcare system of all, came in 37th, the lowest rank for an industrialised country.
WHO planned to issue a new report in 2002, but it was initially postponed until 2003. The decision was based on criticism, primarily that the ranking had proceeded too much from judgmental assessments of experts. No new ranking has yet been published.
This report takes the most common approach to international comparisons, i.e., countries are compared on the basis of various indicators of healthcare results. In order to assess cost-effectiveness, results are related to resource consumption.
Many researchers long argued that the contribution of health care to improved health was relatively limited. They stressed other factors that are associated with
8 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
general improvements in living standards, such as more nutritious food, better hygiene and clean water. But as medicine has progressed, the role of the healthcare system in health, and even welfare, trends has been reconsidered.
A 2005 European Commission Report entitled The Contribution of Health to the Economy is a case in point. The report addressed the significance of health-care systems for economic growth in rich countries. A WHO report several years ago showed a strong positive correlation between health promotion and economic growth in poor countries. The report concluded that the relationship existed in rich countries as well.
British researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee also showed that healthcare improvements have had a positive impact on health in many countries, particular-ly when it comes to lower infant mortality rates, but also lower mortality among the middle-aged and elderly, especially elderly women.
Basing comparisons on results and cost-effectiveness indicators has the great advantage that only healthcare-related data are included. There is no need to analyse and assess dissimilarities in the way that various countries finance, struc-ture and organise health care, such as whether it is good or bad to have few beds at hospitals, short periods of medical care, a high percentage of general practi-tioners, many doctor's appointments per citizen, a large percentage of private caregivers, etc.
Current changes in healthcare systems
The population continues to age throughout the Western world. That increases the need for healthcare interventions in terms of treatment, care and prevention alike. Medical progress, which has broadened the range of diagnostic and treat-ment options, also poses new challenges to healthcare systems.
That is the case for all of the countries included in our comparison. Sweden, in which the percentage of elderly has increased the most, has faced the greatest challenges so far. However, health economic research indicates that results and costs are related not only to demographics and medical progress, but that the design of healthcare systems play a major role in cost-effectiveness, i.e., the results achieved at a particular cost.
To deal with these challenges, a number of countries have reviewed and re-vamped their healthcare systems. In order to improve the ability of the healthcare system to evolve, the Swedish Committee of Accountability has proposed that the current regions be replaced by 6-9 regional municipalities with autonomous taxation rights and responsibility for both health care and regional development issues. In accordance with the proposal, Sweden would retain its decentralised healthcare system but have fewer regional units. The extent to which the com-mittee's proposal will be implemented remains an open question.
The Swedish healthcare system is comparatively decentralised. The 20 regions and 290 local authorities, with their popularly elected officials and autonomous taxation rights, finance and provide most of the health care in their particular areas of responsibility. The national government and parliament have overall responsibility for Sweden's healthcare system.
The other Scandinavian countries have long had similar healthcare systems characterised by extensive decentralisation and an emphasis on regional taxation. But they have now chosen different approaches. The state has taken over healthcare
�TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
financing in both Norway and Denmark. Norway has even nationalised the manage-ment of hospitals. Sweden and Finland still have decentralised healthcare systems.
In 2006, the Netherlands changed its healthcare system as well. The country previously had a decentralised insurance system in which approximately two thirds of the population was covered by mandatory health insurance, while the remainder, mostly people above a certain income bracket, carried private insurance. The system has now been replaced by more comprehensive, mandatory insurance. In addition, everyone is entitled to purchase supplementary voluntary insurance. The state determines what is covered by the mandatory component and is responsible for approximately 5 percent of financing.
Germany is also in the process of reforming its healthcare system. Among the changes is that all citizens will be guaranteed the right to health insurance. Insurers will be obligated to offer at least a basic policy to the approximately 200 000 people who are currently not covered by the system. Starting in 2009, insur-ance premiums will be set at the national level and some of the financing will be shifted to taxation.
The British system is not undergoing any major overhaul. Nevertheless, the orientation has changed in a number of key respects over the past few years. The healthcare system was deemed to be underdeveloped by European standards and has received additional resources. Healthcare expenditures went from 7 percent of GDP in 2000 to more than 9 percent in 2007. Meanwhile, centralised control has strengthened. Several independent national institutes have assumed responsibility for regulation, monitoring and assessment.
Discussion in the United States revolves around two related issues: high healthcare costs in relation to poor results, and the more than 40 million citizens who are uninsured, as well as those who have poor or unreliable coverage. Not surprisingly, financing of health care is an important domestic issue in the 2008 presidential race. The candidates of both major parties have presented proposals for extending coverage to more people.
There is now a greater tendency among the countries under comparison to strive for centrally coordinated healthcare financing. The approach in coun-tries like Denmark and Norway is for the state to take over financing, whereas countries like the Netherlands and Germany have chosen to increase the manda-tory component of health insurance. The proposal of the Swedish Committee of Accountability points in the same direction, though not specifically changing the way health care is financed. Finland is discussing a reduction in the number of healthcare districts (which are in charge of specialist care), as well as change at the local level (responsible for primary care), either by a decrease in the number of local authorities or the establishment of a local federation to manage primary care. Another tendency is to seek greater integration among the vari-ous components of health care. Insufficient coordination and continuity, par-ticularly for the elderly, have long been perceived as problems regardless of the overall healthcare model. One strategy for dealing with these problems has been to strengthen the role of primary care physicians in relation to specialist care, sometimes (as in the UK) by assigning more responsibility for the patient's total health to family doctors.
A similar tendency is visible in Sweden – the Vårdval Halland patient choice scheme is one such example.
10 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
ThreeinternationalcomparisonthatincludeSweden
This section describes the results of three international comparisons that include Sweden – otherwise the countries under comparison vary. All three are broad-based comparisons that assess the cost-effectiveness of the vari-
ous healthcare systems and address the issue of cost-effectiveness in one sense or another.
Health Consumer Powerhouse
Health Consumer Powerhouse (HCP) has published three comparisons of EU coun-tries. The Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI) 2007, which compared 29 coun-tries, has attracted a good deal of attention in the Swedish debate, partly because Sweden dropped from fourth to sixth place since the first comparison. We will make a thorough presentation of this comparison.
HCP describes itself as the leading European company when it comes to com-parisons and analyses of healthcare systems. One target group is the general pub-lic, which comparisons are to help make choices and obtain the power to change healthcare systems. An additional target group consists of governments and other policy makers.
Austria was ranked first in 2007 with 806 out of 1 000 possible points, followed by the Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Germany. Sweden was ranked sixth with 740 points.
The cumulative score is a combination of five subdisciplines (see below). Sweden is the only country that received the highest score on all indicators for the subdiscipline of outcomes and shared first place for the subdisciplines of generos-ity (how many people are covered by public healthcare systems and how many obtain care) and pharmaceuticals. That which pulled Sweden's cumulative score down to sixth place was the subdiscipline of waiting times, in which it was ranked last of the 29 countries. Sweden was in seventh place with respect to patient rights and information.
Worth noting is that the indicators for the subdiscipline of accessibility are not the same that are included in the Swedish healthcare guarantee. In other words, the Swedish healthcare system could satisfy the guarantee in all respects without affecting HCP's assessment of its accessibility.
11TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Below is a list of the various indicators that make up each sub-discipline.
• patient rights and information 9 indicators
Patients' Rights Law; patient organisations involved in decisionmak-
ing; no-fault malpractice insurance; right to second opinion; access to
own medical record; readily accessible register of legit doctors; Elec-
tronic Patient Record (EPR) penetration in primary care; provider cata-
logue with quality ranking; Web or 24/7 telephone healthcare info
• Waiting times: 5 indicators
Familydoctorsamedayservice;directaccesstospecialistcare;majornon-
acuteoperations; cancer– radiation/chemotherapy;MRI (magnetic reso-
nanceimaging)scanexamination
• Outcomes: 5 indicators
Heartinfarctmortality<28daysaftergettingtohospital; infantdeaths/1
000livebirths;cancer,five-yearsurvivalrates;avoidabledeaths(potential
yearsoflifelostper100000citizens);methicillinresistantStaphylococcus
aureus(MRSA)infections
• Generosity of public healthcare systems: 5 indicators
Cataractoperationratesper100000citizens(age-adjusted);Infant4-dis-
easevaccination;kidneytransplantspermillionpopulation;isdentalcarea
partoftheofferingfrompublichealthcaresystems
• Pharmaceuticals: 4 indicators
Rxsubsidy%;layman-adaptedpharmacopoeia;speedofdeploymentofnov-
elcancerdrugs;accesstonewdrugs
A score on a three-point scale was awarded for each of the 28 indicators:
• Threepoints:Goodoutcome
• Twopoints:Intermediaryoutcome
• Onepoint:Pooroutcome
Where the line was drawn between the three scores is not indicated other than that the scores were based on independent assessments depending on the spread for each indicator. Information is generally meagre about how assessments were performed, and it is difficult to get a grasp on how the various countries were judged for a number of the indicators, such as patient organisations involved in decision making or patients' rights law. The surveys referred to are also in-adequately described, as well as the interviews with healthcare officials used to qualify official public data with data in questionnaires and interviews.
12 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
The various subdisciplines that made up the cumulative index were weighted as follows.
According to the report, the weights were arrived at after careful consideration and in dialogue with a panel of experts. But what that consideration consisted of is not presented, such as why generosity in public health care systems, i.e., the percentage of the population covered by the systems and the number that obtain health care, is given only half as much weight as waiting times.
Sub-discipline Relative weight
Patientrightsandinformation 1.5
Waitingtimes 2.0
Outcomes 2.0
Generosityofpublichealthcaresystems 1.0
Pharmaceuticals 1.0
13TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
For each of the five sub-disciplines, below is a presentation of the indicators and how they were defined. To clarify Sweden's position, the indicators are presented separately with Sweden in a column of its own.
Patient rights and information
Indicator Definition 3 points 2 points 1 point Sweden
1 Patients'rightslaw
Isnationalhealthcarelegisla-tionexplicitlyexpressedintermsofpatients'rights?
Yes Variouskindsofpatientchartersorsimilarbylaws
No 1
2 Patientorganisa-tionsinvolvedindecisionmaking?
Yes,statutory
Yes,bycommonpracticeinadvisorycapacity
No,notcompul-soryorgenerallydoneinpractice
2
3 No-faultmalprac-ticeinsurance
Canpatientsgetcompensa-tionwiththeassistanceofthejudicialsysteminprovingthatmedicalstaffmademistakes?
Yes Fair,>25%invaliditycoveredbythestate
No 3
4 Righttosecondopinion
Yes Yes,butdifficulttoaccessduetobadin-formation,bureaucracyordoctornegativism
No 2
5 Accesstoownmedicalrecord
Canpatientsreadtheirownmedicalrecords?
Yes Yes,restrictedorwithintermediary
No 3
6 Readilyaccessibleregisteroflegitdoctors
Canthepublicreadilyaccesstheinfo:”IsdoctorXabonafidespecialist?”
Yes Yes,butawkward,costlyornotfrequentlyupdated
No 1
7 ElectricPatientRecord(EPR)penetrationinprimarycare
WhatpercentageofGPsuseEPRs?
>80% 80%–50% <50% 3
8 Providercataloguewithqualityrank-ing
“Dr.Foster”intheUKremainsthestandardEuropeanquali-ficationfora“Yes”(3points).The“750bestclinics”pub-lishedbyLaPointeinFrancewouldwarrant2points
Yes "Notreally,"butniceattemptsunderway
No 1
� Webor24/7tel-ephonehealthcareinformation
Informationwhichcanhelpapatienttakedecisionsofthenature:"Afterconsultingtheservice,Iwilltakeaparaceta-molandwaitandsee"or"IwillhurrytotheA&Edepartmentofthenearesthospital"
Yes Yes,butnotgenerallyavailable
No 2
14 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Accessibility
Indicator Definition 3 points 2 points 1 point Sweden
1 Familydoctorsamedayservice
CanIcountonsee-ingmyprimarycaredoctortoday?
Yes Yes,butnotquitefulfilled
No 1
2 Directaccesstospecialistcare
Withoutreferralfromfamilydoctor(GP)
Yes Notreally,butquiteof-teninreality
No 1
3 Majornon-acuteopera-tions
A"basket"ofcoro-narybypass/PTCAandhip/kneejoint(valuesmustbeveri-fiedforalltypesofoperations)
�0%<�0days
50-�0%<�0days
>50%>�0days
1
4 Cancer;radi-ation/chemo-therapy
Timetogetradiation/chemotherapyaftertreatmentdecision
�0%<21days
50-�0%<21days
>50%>21days
2
5 MRI(mag-neticresonanceimaging)scanexamination
Time Typically<7days
Typically<21days
Typically>21days
1
Outcomes
Indicator Definition 3 points 2 points 1 point Swe-den
1 Heartinfarctmortality<28daysaftergettingtohospital
<18% <25% >25% 3
2 Infantdeaths/1000livebirths
<4 <6 >6 3
3 Cancer5-yearsurvivalrates
Allcancersexceptskin
>60% 50–60% <50% 3
4 Avoidabledeaths–potentialyearsoflifelost/100000
<3500 3500–4500
>4500 3
5 Methicillinresist-antStaphylo-coccusaureus(MRSA)infections
<5% <20% >20% 3
15TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Indicator Definition 3 points 2 points 1 point Sweden
1 Familydoctorsamedayservice
CanIcountonsee-ingmyprimarycaredoctortoday?
Yes Yes,butnotquitefulfilled
No 1
2 Directaccesstospecialistcare
Withoutreferralfromfamilydoctor(GP)
Yes Notreally,butquiteof-teninreality
No 1
3 Majornon-acuteopera-tions
A"basket"ofcoro-narybypass/PTCAandhip/kneejoint(valuesmustbeveri-fiedforalltypesofoperations)
�0%<�0days
50-�0%<�0days
>50%>�0days
1
4 Cancer;radi-ation/chemo-therapy
Timetogetradiation/chemotherapyaftertreatmentdecision
�0%<21days
50-�0%<21days
>50%>21days
2
5 MRI(mag-neticresonanceimaging)scanexamination
Time Typically<7days
Typically<21days
Typically>21days
1
Generosity of the public healthcare system
Indicator Definition 3 points 2 points 1 point Swe-den
1 Cataractopera-tionratesper100000citizens(age-adjusted)
>700 400–700 <400 3
2 Infant4-disease vaccination% >�7% �2–�7% <�2% 3
3 Kidneytrans-plantspermillionpopulation
Livingandde-ceaseddonors
>40 40–30 <30 3
4 Isdentalcareapartoftheofferingfrompublichealthcaresystems?
Publicspendondentalcareas%oftotalpublichealthcarespend
>�% �–5% <5% 2
Pharmaceuticals
Indicator Definition 3 points 2 points 1 point Sweden
1 Rxsubsidy% >�0% 60–�0% <60% 2
2 Layman-adapt-edpharmaco-poeia?
Isthereanadaptedpharmacopeiaforpersonswhoarenon-expertinhealthcarereadilyaccessiblebythepublic(wwworwidelyavailable)?
Yes Yes,butnotreallyeasilyac-cessibleorfrequentlyconsulted
No 3
3 Speedofdeploymentofnovelcancerdrugs
Howquicklyarenewcancerdrugsmadeavailablethroughpublichealthcare?
QuickerthanEUaverage
ClosetoEUaverage
SlowerthanEUaverage
2
4 Accesstonewdrugs
Periodbetweenregis-trationandinclusionofdrugsinsubsidysystem
<150days
<300days >300days
3
16 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
The Conference Board of Canada
The Conference Board of Canada (CBC) is an independent non-profit organisa-tion that obtains assignments from both the public and private sector. The CBC seeks to generate knowledge about economic, policy and organisational develop-ment trends in various areas, including health care.
A comparison published by the CBC in 2004 ranked the healthcare systems of 24 countries on the basis of 24 indicators. Switzerland was ranked first and Swe-den second. Spain, France, Italy and Germany shared third place, while the United States came in second to last, followed by Greece.
The 2007 report covers not only health care, but a number of other areas, including the economy, innovation, environment and education. As shown in the following table, which lists healthcare ranks and scores, the selection of countries was somewhat different than 2004. Switzerland was still ranked first, whereas Japan, one of the new countries included in the comparison, was ranked second. Sweden was ranked third. The United States was still second to last, followed this time by Ireland.
The CBC uses traditional indicators based on results and cost-effectiveness.
Ranking Country Score
1 Switzerland A
2 Japan A
3 Sweden A
4 France A
5 Australia A
6 Norway A
7 Italy A
8 Canada B
� TheNetherlands B
10 Germany B
11 Finland C
12 Austria C
13 UK C
14 Belgium D
15 Denmark D
16 UnitedStates D
17 Ireland D
17TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Below is a description of the various indicators.
Indicators
Output
Lifeexpectancyforwomen
Lifeexpectancyformen
Perceivedhealthstatus
Prematuredeaths
Deathsduetocancer
Deathsduetocirculatorydisease
Deathsduetorespiratorydisease
Deathsduetoheartdisease
Deathsduetodiabetes
Deathsduetofluandpneumonia
Infantmortality
Frequencyofsuicide
Health status Resources Use Non-medical determinants
Input
Injuriesduetotrafficaccidents
Practicingdoctors Vaccinationagainstdiphtheria,tetanusandpertussis
Alcoholcon-sumption
Lowbirthweight Practicinggeneralpractitioners
Vaccinationagainstmeasles
Tobaccocon-sumption
Practicingspecialists Vaccinationof65+againstflu
Overweightorobesity
Practicingnurses
Mammographyscreening
Practicingpharmacists Screeningforcervicalcancer
MRIunits
Radiotherapyunits
Policy
Percentageofpopulationwithfullaccesstohealthcare
Increaseincostsforhealthcare–public
Increaseincostsforhealthcare–private
18 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
The Fraser Institute
The motto on the website of the Fraser Institute (FI) is "a free and prosperous world through choice, markets and responsibility." It is an independent Canadian research institute financed by contributions from individuals, businesses and foundations. The FI measures and studies the impact of competition and govern-ment intervention on individuals and society.
The FI published an international comparison of 27 countries in 2005. The purpose was to provide an overall assessment of the various healthcare systems and their cost-effectiveness. The cumulative ranking put Australia in first place and Sweden in second place.
The report focused on how well Canada stacked up against other countries.
• HowmuchdoesCanadaspendonhealthcarecomparedtoothercountries?
• WhatcountriesotherthanCanadadonothavecostsharing?
• DoesCanadahavetoomanydoctorsandshouldCanadaputitsdoctorsonsalary?
• DoothercountriesfollowCanada'smodelofmonopolisticpublicprovisionofhealthinsurance?
• AreCanadiansgettingtheirmoney'sworthfromCanada'sexpen-sivehealthcareprogramme?
Indicators Score
Lifeexpectancyforwomen
Lifeexpectancyformen
Perceivedhealthstatus
Prematuredeaths
Deathsduetocancer
Deathsduetocirculatorydisease
Deathsduetorespiratorydisease
Deathsduetoheartdisease
Deathsduetodiabetes
Deathsduetofluandpneumonia
Infantmortality
Frequencyofsuicide
C
A
B
A
A
C
A
D
B
B
A
B
Sweden's scores on the various results indicators appear in the following table.
1�TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Most of the report was a contribution to the Canadian debate about its healthcare system, and the thrust of it was critical of the current system. Below are some of the indicators on which the report is based (Sweden's rank in parentheses).
• Healthylifeexpectancy/lifeexpectancy(2)
• Infantmortality(2)
• Perinatalmortality(8)
Mortality closely related to the cost-effectiveness of health care:
• Mortalityamenabletohealthcare(5)
• Potentialyearsoflifelost(2)
• Breastcancermortality(1)
• Colorectalcancer,combinedmortality(�)
• Cumulativeranking(2)
20 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Acomparisonofcost-effectivenessin17countries–SwedencomparedwiththeotherEU15countries,NorwayandtheUnitedStates.
This report compares the healthcare systems of different countries based on indica-tors of results and resources. Indicators of accessibility and patient experience are not included given that such data are available for a few countries only. As
opposed to our 2005 report, we have created cumulative indexes for both results and re-source consumption. Combining these two indexes generates a cost-effectiveness index of the various healthcare systems.
As seen in the other international comparisons presented above, cumulative indexes are common. The advantage of creating indexes is that an overall assess-ment is obtained. Indexes are generally employed to permit an overview when many different indicators are used. It is a way to summarise and describe complex phenomena and correlations. Indexes also have disadvantages, above all that they may conceal the complexity of results. Thus, the total ranking may be emphasised too much and ignore the complexity of the underlying results. Even that which is ranked first may have poor results in particular areas.
Indexes are also sensitive to the choice of method, such as which one is used to scale indicators and how missing values are handled. Moreover, results are affected by how various indicators are weighted. For that reason, it is important to perform various kinds of sensitivity analyses in order to assess how alternative weightings influence the results. This section concludes with such a sensitivity analysis.
The indexes presented in this section proceed from the individual indicators described in the appendix. The indicators that are part of a particular index are marked with an asterisk. The indexes are essentially based on the average (after standardisation) of the individual indicators. If a country has good results for a number of indicators in an area, it does well in that particular area. The methodol-ogy for each index is presented in a separate note. For a more in-depth description of how indexes are created and the opportunities and risks they entail, refer to Witell and Elg (2008).
The countries included in the comparison are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the United States. The resource consumption index reports all of the countries, but Belgium is not part of the results index given that the available statistics are not good enough.
21TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Belg
ium
Aust
ria
Net
herla
nds
Luxe
mbo
urg
Gre
ece
Fran
ce
Ger
man
y
Irela
nd
Nor
way
Swed
en
Den
mar
k
Spai
n
Italy
Port
ugal UK
Finl
and
Resource consumption index
The resource consumption index consists of four indicators, as shown below.
Resource consumption indicators
Indicator Unit of mea-surement
Source Desired direction
Percapitacostofhealthcarein2005,withpurchasingpowertakenintoconsideration.U.S.dollars
Cost OECD2007
Minimise
HealthcareasapercentageofGDP,2005 Percentage OECD2007
Minimise
Doctorsper1000citizens,2005 Number OECD2007
Minimise
Nursesper1000citizens,2005 Number OECD2007
Minimise
The index for resource consumption is shown below. The method for creating the index is based on first scaling all the indicators to [0, 1] and then calculating the average. Thus, the indicators are all weighted the same.1
Resource consumption index
1.Theindexisdesignedaccordingtotherescalingmethod.Accordingtothemethod,allvariablesareassignedavaluefrom0to1.Furthermore,thereisacompletedataset,i.e.,noobservationsaremissingforanycountry.
22 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
The country in which health care consumes the most resources is the United States, followed by Belgium, Austria and the Netherlands. The "cost of health care" and "percentage of GDP" indicators are primarily responsible for the position of the United States. Belgium has high values for all indicators, whereas Austria and the Netherlands exhibit relatively large variations among the various indicators.
The countries in which health care consumes the fewest resources are Finland, the UK, Portugal, Italy and Spain. All indicators for Finland except for "nurses per 1 000 citizens" show very low resource consumption. Sweden has relatively low costs for health care.
Results index
The results index contains 18 indicators.
Results indicators
Indicator Unit of mea-surement
Source Desired direction
Lifeexpectancyofaboybornin2005 Year OECD2007 Maximise
Lifeexpectancyofagirlbornin2005 Year OECD2007 Maximise
Prematuredeathsyoungerthan70per100000citizensin2004,women
Number OECD2007 Minimise
Prematuredeathsyoungerthan70per100000citizensin2004,men
Number OECD2007 Minimise
Avoidabledeathsin2004,age-standardised Percentage OECD2007 Minimise
Infantdeathsin2005per1000livebirths Percentage OECD2007 Minimise
Numberofdeathsfromcancerper100000citizensin2004,women Number OECD2007 Minimise
Numberofdeathsfromcancerper100000citizensin2004,men Number OECD2007 Minimise
Numberofdeathsfromlungcancerper100000citizensin2004,women
Number OECD2007 Minimise
Numberofdeathsfromlungcancerper100000citizensin2004,men
Number OECD2007 Minimise
Numberofdeathsfrombreastcancerper100000citizensin2004
Number OECD2007 Minimise
Numberofdeathsfromischaemicheartdiseaseper100000citizensin2004,women
Number OECD2007 Minimise
Numberofdeathsfromischaemicheartdiseaseper100000citizensin2004,men
Number OECD2007 Minimise
Numberofdeathsfromstrokeper100000citizensin2004,women
Number OECD;HealthatGlance2007
Minimise
Numberofdeathsfromstrokeper100000citizensin2004,men Number OECD;HealthatGlance2007
Minimise
Numberofchildrenvaccinatedagainstmeaslesin2005 Percentage OECD2007 Maximise
Numberofchildrenvaccinatedagainstdiphtheria,tetanusorper-tussisin2005
Percentage OECD2007 Maximise
Salesofantibioticsinoutpatientcare,2003 Number ESAC* Minimise
*EuropeanSurveillanceofAntimicrobialConsumption
23TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
The results index is shown below. The method for creating the results index is based on the same procedure as the resource consumption index. All indica-tors are first scaled to [0, 1], after which their averages are calculated. A number of values are missing for some of the indicators. Depending on what type of values are missing and whether the cause is random or systematic, different sub-stitution techniques (imputation and mean substitution) have been used (see Witell and Elg, 2008).
So much data was missing for Belgium that no index could be created.
Sweden, Spain, Norway and France score best on the results index. The United States, Denmark, Portugal and the UK come in last. Sweden does well on most of the indicators. Key areas in which Sweden performs comparatively poorly are the number of women who die of cancer per 100 000 and the number of women who die of lung cancer per 100 000. That is also true of mortality from stroke and ischaemic heart disease. Nevertheless, Sweden scores well on the index as a whole. As opposed to Sweden, 2nd place Spain is relatively weak when it comes to deaths from cancer and lung cancer in men.
!
Swed
en
Spai
n
Nor
way
Fran
ce
Luxe
mbo
urg
Ger
man
y
Finl
and
Net
herla
nds
Italy
Aust
ria
Gre
ece
Irela
nd UK
Port
ugal
Den
mar
k
Uni
ted
Stat
es
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Results index
24 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Cost-effectiveness index
This index was created in order to assess cost-effectiveness at an overall level. The index is based on the indexes for resource consumption and results. Results are weighed against resource consumption, and the countries that produce good results at low resource consumption are ranked best. Finland has the most cost-effective health care according to this index. Spain is ranked second and Sweden third. Overall, the United States provides the least cost-effective health care.
Finland and Sweden, two of the three countries at the top, have healthcare systems that are tax-financed at the regional level. Spain, the third country, has tax financing at the national level combined with regional responsibility for man-agement and organisation.
All three countries also have relatively few beds per citizen. Sweden and Spain are the lowest in that regard. That is a sign of the ability to restructure and introduce new medical technologies and pharmaceuticals, which improves cost-effectiveness.
Finl
and
Spai
n
Swed
en
Nor
way
Italy
Fran
ce UK
Ger
man
y
Port
ugal
Luxe
mbo
urg
Irela
nd
Net
herla
nds
Gre
ece
Den
mar
k
Aust
ria
Uni
ted
Stat
es
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
!
Cost-effectiveness index
To illustrate the ingredients of cost-effectiveness, the indexes for resource con-sumption and results are juxtaposed in a two-dimensional matrix. The ideal posi-tion is near point [0,0], i.e., low resource consumption and good results. The worst position is near point [1, 1], i.e., high resource consumption and poor results.
25TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Cost-effectiveness matrix
The matrix shows that the United States is nearest the worst position, i.e., high resource consumption and poor results. Finland is at the other extreme with the lowest resource consumption and relatively good results. Sweden and Spain are close to each other with good results and medium resource consumption. Norway, France, Germany and Italy also have relatively good positions on the cost-effec-tiveness matrix.
Sensitivity analysis
Following is a presentation of the various sensitivity analyses that we performed by varying the weights of the indicators in the results index, or varying the weights of results or resource consumption in the cost-effectiveness index.
For the results index, we examined the impact of changing the weight of broader and narrower indicators as follows.
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
!
Bestposition
Denmark
Finland
France
Greece
Netherlands
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Norway
Portugal
Spain
UK
Sweden
Germany
UnitedStates
Austria
Resources
Desired direction
Des
ired
dir
ecti
on
Resu
lts
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Worstposition
26 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Broader indicators:
• Lifeexpectancyofaboybornin2005
• Lifeexpectancyofagirlbornin2005
• Prematuredeathsyoungerthan70per100000citizensin2004,women
• Prematuredeathsyoungerthan70per100000citizensin2004,men
• Avoidabledeathsin2004,age-standardised
• Infantdeathsin2005per1000livebirths
Narrower indicators:
• Numberofdeaths fromcancerper100000citizens in2004,women
• Numberofdeathsfromcancerper100000citizensin2004,men
• Numberofdeathsfromlungcancerper100000citizensin2004,women
• Numberofdeathsfromlungcancerper100000citizensin2004,men
• Number of deaths from breast cancer per 100 000 citizens in2004
• Numberofdeathsfromischaemicheartdiseaseper100000citi-zensin2004,women
• Numberofdeathsfromischaemicheartdiseaseper100000citi-zensin2004,men
• Number of deaths from stroke per 100 000 citizens in 2004,women
• Numberofdeathsfromstrokeper100000citizensin2004,men
• Numberofchildrenvaccinatedagainstmeaslesin2005
• Numberofchildrenvaccinatedagainstdiphtheria,tetanusorper-tussisin2005
• Salesofantibioticsinoutpatientcare,2003
27TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
We studied the following weighting alternatives:
1)broaderindicators25%,narrowerindicators75%
2)broaderindicators50%,narrowerindicators50%
3)broaderindicators75%,narrowerindicators25%
4)broaderindicators100%,narrowerindicators0%
The various weightings for the broader and narrower indicators did not lead to very large differences for the great majority of countries (such as France, Lux-embourg, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark). But Italy and Ireland have better positions when the broader indicators are weighted up, while countries like Germany and Finland have poorer positions. Regardless of how we weighted the indicators, Sweden was toward the top of the results index.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Sve
rige
Spa
nien
Nor
ge
Fran
krik
e
Luxe
mbu
rg
Tysk
land
Finl
and
Hol
land
Italie
n
Öst
errik
e
Gre
klan
d
Irlan
d
Sto
rbrit
anni
en
Por
tuga
l
Dan
mar
k
US
A
Ran
king
vald modell
Allm. 25% Spec. 75%
Allm. 50% Spec. 50%
Allm. 75% Spec. 25%
Allm. 100% Spec. 0%
Vald modell
Allm. 25 %Spec. 75 %
Allm. 50 %Spec. 50 %
Allm. 75 %Spec. 25 %
Allm. 100 %Spec. 0%
Swed
en
Spai
n
Nor
way
Fran
ce
Luxe
mbo
urg
Ger
man
y
Finl
and
Net
herla
nds
Italy
Aust
ria
Gre
ece
Irela
nd UK
Port
ugal
Den
mar
k
Uni
ted
Stat
es
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Rank
ing
Importance of various weightings for the results index Wide interpretation 25%
Narrow interpretation 75%
Wide interpretation 50%Narrow interpretation 50%
Wide interpretation 75%Narrow interpretation 25%
Wide interpretation 100%Narrow interpretation 0%
Selected model
28 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Swed
en
Spai
n
Nor
way
Fran
ce
Luxe
mbo
urg
Ger
man
y
Finl
and
Net
herla
nds
Italy
Aust
ria
Gre
ece
Irela
nd UK
Port
ugal
Den
mar
k
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Generally speaking, the sensitivity analysis shows that the countries with the best and worst results retained their position regardless of how the various indicators were weighted.
The diagram shows that Germany and Finland's positions are lower when the broader indicators are weighted up. On the other hand, Italy has a higher position when the broader indicators are weighted up. Ireland has a similar pattern.
Alternative results indexes
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
Sver
ige
Span
ien
Nor
ge
Fran
krik
e
Luxe
mbu
rg
Tysk
land
Finl
and
Hol
land
Italie
n
Öst
errik
e
Gre
klan
d
Irlan
d
Stor
brita
nnie
n
Port
ugal
Dan
mar
k
USA
Vald modell
Allm. 25 %Spec. 75 %
Allm. 50 %Spec. 50 %
Allm. 75 %Spec. 25 %
Allm. 100 %Spec. 0 %
10.�0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.1
0
Wide interpretation 25%Narrow interpretation 75%
Wide interpretation 50%Narrow interpretation 50%
Wide interpretation 75%Narrow interpretation 25%
Wide interpretation 100%Narrow interpretation 0%
Selected model
2�TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
The diagram shows that the positions of some countries are affected by weighting. For example, Finland has a somewhat poorer position when the results indicators are weighted up. Nevertheless, it retains its position toward the top. The UK, Por-tugal and Denmark also negatively affected when the results indicator is weighted up. However, Sweden's position improves when the results indicators are given greater weight.
Because cost-effectiveness may also be regarded as results divided by quan-tity of resources, the sensitivity analysis also included an index based on that approach. The approach generally showed the same relative positions as above: Finland had the most cost-effective health care, followed by Spain and Sweden. Denmark, Austria and the United States had the least cost-effective health care.
10.�0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.1
0
Resources 75%Results 25%
Resources 25%Results 75%
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
Finl
and
Spa
nien
Sve
rige
Nor
ge
Italie
n
Fran
krik
e
Sto
rbrit
anni
en
Tysk
land
Por
tuga
l
Luxe
mbu
rg
Irlan
d
Hol
land
Gre
klan
d
Dan
mar
k
Öst
errik
e
US
A
Selected model
Resources 75%Results 25%
Resources 25%Results 75%
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
Finl
and
Spa
nien
Sve
rige
Nor
ge
Italie
n
Fran
krik
e
Sto
rbrit
anni
en
Tysk
land
Por
tuga
l
Luxe
mbu
rg
Irlan
d
Hol
land
Gre
klan
d
Dan
mar
k
Öst
errik
e
US
A
Selected model
Finl
and
Spai
n
Swed
en
Nor
way
Italy
Fran
ce UK
Ger
man
y
Port
ugal
Luxe
mbo
urg
Irela
nd
Net
herla
nds
Gre
ece
Den
mar
k
Aust
ria
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Alternative cost-effectiveness indexes
Cost-effectiveness index
For the cost-effectiveness index, we studied the impact of changing the weight of results or resource consumption/cost as follows.
1) 25%resultsand75%resourceconsumption/cost
2) 75%resultsand25%resourceconsumption/cost
TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?30
Appendix
DEMOGRAPHICS
The population of the EU countries is aging, and the fastest growth is among peo-ple over 80. At 5.4 percent, Sweden has the largest percentage of people age 80 or older, followed by Italy with 5 percent. At 2.7 percent, Ireland has the lowest per-centage of people age 80 or older.
COSTS AND COST TRENDS
The most common way of looking at costs in international comparisons is to proceed from the dollar cost per citizen while taking into consideration pur-chasing power in each country. Based on that calculation, the per capita cost for health care in 2005 was three times as much in the United States (6 401 dollars) as Portugal (2 041 dollars). Among the Scandinavian countries, healthcare costs per citizen were highest in Norway (4 364 dollars), followed by Denmark (3 108 dollars) and Sweden (2 918 dollars), while Finland was lowest (2 331 dollars). Of the 17 countries compared in this report, 11 had higher costs than Sweden.Healthcare costs rose in all the countries compared in this report. Costs increased by 77 percent in Sweden. At 192 percent, Luxembourg had the largest increase from 1995 to 2005, while Germany's costs were up by only 58 percent for the same period.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Source: Eurostat and U.S Census Bureau 2007
Population age 80 and older as a percentage of total population, 2005
Sweden
Italy
Norway
France
UK
Belgium
Germany
Spain
Austria
Denmark
Finland
Portugal
United States
Netherlands
Greece
Luxembourg
Ireland
Percentage 80 years of age and older
31TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP are one way of describing these trends. Healthcare costs rose as a percentage of GDP from 2000 to 2005 in all the
countries compared. The largest increases were in Luxembourg (2.5 percentage points) and the United States (2.0 percentage points), while the smallest increase was in Greece (0.2 percentage points). Sweden's healthcare costs rose by 0.7 per-centage points from 8.4 percent of GDP in 2000 to 9.1 percent in 2005.
Healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP in 2005 were lowest in Ireland and Finland (7.5 percent) and highest in the United States (15.3 percent). Of the 17
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
US dollars per citizen
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004
Portugal
Spain
Finland
Italy
UK
Sweden
Ireland
Greece
Netherlands1)
Denmark
Germany
France
Belgium
Austria
Norway
Luxembourg
United States
Per capita cost for health care, 2005
*= The indicator is part of the resource consumption index
Purchasing power taken into consideration. US-dollars*
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Source: OECD 2007 =1994-2004
Index
Purchasing power taken into consideration. Index 1995=100Increase in per capita cost for health care, 1995–2005
Germany
Italy
Finland
Denmark
Sweden
Netherlands1)
France
United States
Spain
UK
Austria
Belgium
Portugal
Norway
Greece
Ireland
Luxembourg
1)
TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?32
countries compared in this report, 7 had healthcare costs with a lower percentage of GDP than Sweden.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004
Doctors per 1 000 citizens, 2005*
*= The indicator is part of the resource consumption index
Doctors per 1 000 citizens
United States
UK
Finland
Luxembourg
Ireland
Germany
Portugal
France
Sweden1)
Austria
Denmark1)
Norway
Netherlands
Spain
Italy
Belgium
Greece1)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Irland
Finlan
d
Luxe
mbourg Sp
ain UKIta
ly2)
Denmark
Swed
en
Austri
a
Portu
gal
Belgium
German
y
Franc
e
1985 1995 2005
Source OECD 2007 1) = 20042) = no data available for 1985
Health care as a percentage of GDP, 1985, 1995 and 2005*
*= The indicator is part of the resource consumption index
United
State
s
Netherl
ands
1)
Greece
2)
Norway
PERSONNEL RESOURCES
Sweden had 3.4 doctors per 1 000 citizens, just below average. The United States was lowest with 2.4 doctors per 1 000 citizens, and Greece (4.9) and Belgium (4) were highest.
33TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
At 10.6 nurses per 1 000 citizens, Sweden came in sixth place. Five countries had more and 11 countries had fewer nurses per 1 000 citizens.
0 4 8 12 16
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004 2)=2002
Nurses per 1 000 citizens, 2005*
*= The indicator is part of the resource consumption index
Nurses /1 000 citizens
Greece1)
Portugal
Italy
Spain
Finland1)
France
Denmark1)
United States2)
UK
Austria
Germany
Sweden1)
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Belgium
Ireland
Norway
STRUCTURE OF HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
Sweden and Spain had the fewest beds per 1 000 citizens in short-term health care with 2.2 and 2.6 respectively. Germany had 6.4 beds per 1 000 citizens.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Beds/1000 citizens
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004
Beds per 1000 citizens, 2005
Sweden
Spain1)
United States
Ireland
Norway
Portugal
Finland
Denmark1)
UK
Netherlands
Italy
France
Greece1)
Belgium
Luxembourg
Austria
Germany
TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?34
With shorter and shorter periods of medical care, the number of beds has de-creased. As indicated by figure below, Denmark and Sweden had the shortest periods of medical care.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Days
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004
Average period of medical care, 2005. Short-term care
Denmark
Sweden
United States
Austria
UK
Ireland
Italy1)
Norway
Spain1)
Portugal
Finland
Germany
France
ACCESS TO VARIOUS MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS
More than 200 hip operations per 100 000 citizens were performed in Sweden in 2005, putting it in fourth place behind Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg. Portugal and Spain were lowest with fewer than 100 operations per 100 000 citizens.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Austri
a
Belgium
1)
Luxe
mbourg
Denmark
Norway
1)UK
Finlan
dIta
ly1)
Irelan
dSp
ain
Portu
gal
Antal höftledsoperationer per 100 000 invånare 2005
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004
Operations per 100 000 citizensUnit
ed St
ates1
)
Netherl
ands
Swed
en
35TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
More than 895 cataract operations per 100 000 citizens were performed in Sweden in 2005, putting it in fourth place behind Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg. Ire-land and Portugal were considerably lower with just over 250 and 288 operations respectively per 100 000 citizens.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Belgium
1)Sp
ain
Luxe
mbourg
Swed
en2)
Greece
2)
Finlan
dIta
ly1)
Denmark
Norway
1)
Portu
gal
Irelan
d
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004 2)=2003
Number of cataract operations per 100 000 citizens, 2005
Netherl
ands
Operations per 100 000 citizens
UK
RESULTS
At 78.4, Swedish men had the highest life expectancy in 2005. At 84, Spanish and French women had the highest life expectancy, as opposed to 82.8 for Swedish women. The difference between women and men was least in the UK (4.2), fol-lowed by Sweden and the Netherlands (4.4). France had the biggest difference (7.1).
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Life expectancy
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004
Life expectancy of a boy born in 2005*
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Sweden
Norway
Italy
Spain
Netherlands
Ireland
UK
Greece
France
Austria
Luxembourg
Germany
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
United States1)
Portugal
TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?36
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004
Life expectancy of a girl born in 2005*
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Spain
France
Italy
Sweden
Norway
Luxembourg
Finland
Austria
Ireland
Germany
Greece
Belgium
Netherlands
Portugal
UK
United States1)
Denmark
Life expectancy
Premature death is another frequently used indicator of ill-health. All deaths be-fore age 70 are regarded as premature. That measure is not wholly correlated with remaining life expectancy. Swedish men have the lowest premature deaths per 100 000 citizens, while Swedish women are in third place among the 16 countries that reported to the OECD.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2003 2)=2002
Premature death below age 70 in 2004, men*
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Sweden2)
Netherlands
Norway
Italy2)
Ireland
Germany
UK
Spain
Austria
Greece
Denmark3)
Luxembourg
France1)
Finland
Portugal1)
United States
Number of deaths under age 70 per 100 000 citizens
37TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Avoidable deaths are an indicator that focus most on what healthcare systems can accomplish by means of preventive and direct interventions.
The figure below, which presents age-standardised avoidable deaths, shows that Sweden was in third place behind France and Norway.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2003 2)=2002
Premature death below age 70 in 2004, women*
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Spain
Luxembourg
Sweden2)
Greece
Italy2)
Germany
Austria
Norway
France1)
Ireland
Netherlands
Finland
UK
Portugal1)
Denmark2)
United States
Number of deaths under age 70 per 100 000 citizens
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Norway Sweden Luxembourg Spain Finland Germany Belgium Italy Denmark Portugal
Source: OECD
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Deaths per 100 000 citizens, 1–74 years of age
Avoidable deaths in 2004, age-standardised*
France Netherlands Austria
TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?38
Sweden had the lowest infant mortality rate. In 2005, 2.4 Swedish infants per 1 000 live births died during the first year of life. Average infant mortality in the EU countries was 3.8 per 1 000 live births. At 6.8, the United States had the highest infant mortality rate per 1 000 live births.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004
Infant mortality, 2005*
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Sweden
Luxembourg
Finland
Norway
Portugal
France
Belgium
Greece
Germany
Ireland
Spain
Austria
Denmark
Italy
Netherlands
UK
United States1)
Deaths per 1 000 live births
Swedish men had the fewest deaths from cancer per 100 000 citizens. Spanish women had the fewest deaths, while Sweden was in tenth place.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2003 2)=2002 3)=2001
Number of deaths from cancer per 100 000 citizens in 2004, women*
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Spain
Portugal1)
Greece
Luxembourg
Finland
France1)
Italy2)
Austria
Germany
Sweden2)
United States
Norway
Netherlands
UK
Ireland
Denmark3)
Deaths per 100 000 citizens
39TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Deaths from lung cancer were higher among men than women in all of the coun-tries. At 30 per 100 000 citizens, Sweden men had the fewest deaths, whereas the Netherlands had the most at 72 per 100 000. Portuguese women had the fewest deaths with 7 per 100 000 citizens. Swedish women were in tenth place with 19 deaths per 100 000 citizens.
Deaths per 100 000 citizens
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2003 2)=2002 3)=2001
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Sweden2)
Finland
United States
Norway
Greece
Germany
Portugal1)
Austria
UK
Ireland
Luxembourg
Spain
Italy2)
Netherlands
France1)
Denmark3)
Number of deaths from cancer per 100 000 citizens in 2004, men*
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2003 2)=2002 3)=2001
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Portugal1)
Spain
Greece
Finland
France
Italy2)
Luxembourg
Germany
Austria
Sweden2)
Norway
Netherlands
Ireland
UK
United States
Denmark3)
Number of deaths from lung cancer per 100 000 citizens in 2004, women*
Deaths per 100 000 citizens
TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?40
The number of deaths from breast cancer varied between 17 and 33 per 100 000 citizens. Spain was lowest with 17, and Sweden in fourth place with 20, deaths per 100 000 citizens.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2003 2)=2002 3)=2001
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Spain
Finland
Portugal1)
Sweden2)
Luxembourg
Norway
Greece
United States
Austria
Italy2)
France1)
Germany
UK
Netherlands
Ireland
Denmark3)
Deaths per 100 000 citizens
Number of deaths from breast cancer per 100 000 citizens in 2004*
Ischaemic heart disease is a serious condition that carries the risk of developing heart infarct and accompanying heart failure. Deaths were considerably higher among men than women in all of the countries. Finland had the most deaths among both women and men. In 2004, 159 Swedish men and 76 Swedish women per 100 000 citizens died of ischaemic heart disease. Thus, Sweden had the most deaths from ischaemic heart disease per 100 000 citizens among the countries compared in this report, and its rates were high for both women and men. France had the fewest number of deaths among both women and men.
0 50 100 150 200 250
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2003 2)=2002 3)=2001
*= The indicator is part of the results index
France1)
Portugal1)
Spain
Netherlands
Italy2)
Luxembourg
Greece
Norway
Germany
Austria
Denmark3)
United States
UK
Sweden2)
Ireland
Finland
Deaths per 100 000 citizens
Number of deaths from ischaemic heart disease per 100 000 citizens in 2004, men*
41TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Stroke is one of the most widespread diseases, with 700 000 new cases in the EU countries and 30 000 in Sweden every year. Almost one out of every two people who are hospitalised for a neurological disease are stroke patients. Ranked accord-ing to the fewest number of deaths, Sweden was in tenth place for both women and men. Portugal had the highest number of deaths and France the lowest among both women and men.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2003 2)=2002 3)=2001
*= The indicator is part of the results index
France1)
Spain
Netherlands
Portugal1)
Italy2)
Luxembourg
Greece
Norway
UK
Denmark3)
Sweden2)
Germany
Ireland
United States
Austria
Finland
Deaths per 100 000 citizens
Number of deaths from ischaemic heart disease per 100 000 citizens in 2004, women*
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Source: OECD; Helth at Glance 2007 1)=2003 2)=2002 3)=2001
*= The indicator is part of the results index
France1)
United States2)
Austria
Ireland
Netherlands
Spain
Germany
Norway
Luxembourg
Sweden2)
UK
Finland
Italy2)
Denmark3)
Greece
Portugal1)
Number of deaths from stroke per 100 000 citizens in 2004, men*
Deaths per 100 000 citizens
TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?42
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Source: OECD; Helth at Glance 2007 1)=2003 2)=2002 3)=2001
*= The indicator is part of the results index
France1)
Austria
United States2)
Spain
Ireland
Norway
Germany
Netherlands
Finland
Sweden2)
Italy2)
Luxembourg
Denmark3)
UK
Greece
Portugal1)
Deaths per 100 000 citizens
Number of deaths from stroke per 100 000 citizens in 2004, women*
Breast and prostate cancer, the two most common forms, account for one third of all cancer cases. The Lancet (August 2007) compiled and published data on five-year survival rates for several types of cancer diagnosed in 1995-1999.
Sweden was first for breast cancer and seventh for prostate cancer.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Sweden Italy Finland Spain Germany UK Denmark AustriaFrance Netherlands Norway
Five
-yea
r su
rviv
al, %
Breast cancer, five-year survival rate, age-standardised (diagnosed in 1995–1999)
Source: The Lancet, Au 007gusti 2
43TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
Sweden was first for skin cancer and shared first place for colon cancer.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
FinlandSweden Italy SpainGermany UK DenmarkAustriaFrance NetherlandsNorway
Source: The Lancet, Au 007gusti 2
Five
-yea
r su
rviv
al, %
Colon cancer, five-year survival rate, age-standardised (diagnosed in 1995–1999)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
FinlandSweden Italy Spain GermanyUKDenmark AustriaFranceNetherlands Norway
Source: The Lancet, Au 007gusti 2
Five
-yea
r su
rviv
al, %
Skin cancer, five-year survival rate, age standardised (diagnosed in 1995–1999)
TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?44
CERTAIN PREVENTIVE INTERVENTIONS
To avoid the development of resistance, antibiotics should be handled carefully. Sweden uses antibiotics rather sparingly and has relative low resistance.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Austri
a
Denmark
Tysk
land UK
Norway
Finlan
d
Irelan
dSp
ain
Belgium Ita
ly
Portu
gal
Franc
e
Greece
Source: European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESA
Other antibiotics Penicillin
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Defined Daily Doses per 1 000 citizens/day
Luxe
mbourg
Swed
en
Netherl
ands
Sales of antibiotics in outpatient care, 2003*
C)
All parents in Sweden are given the opportunity for their children to be vacci-nated against eight serious diseases, including diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and measles. In 2005, 95 percent of Swedish children had been vaccinated against mea-sles, putting it in fifth place among the countries compared in this report. Sweden was at the top when it came to vaccination of children against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.
45TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Finlan
d1)
Denmark
1)
German
y
Portu
gal
Belgium Ita
ly
Perc
ent
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004
Austri
a1)
Spain
Franc
e1)
Greece
1)
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Luxe
mbourg
1)
Swed
en
Netherl
ands UK
Norway
1)
Irelan
d
United
State
s
Number of children vaccinated against measles in 2005*
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Franc
e1)
Belgium
Finlan
d1)
Spain
Denmark
1)
Irelan
d
Source: OECD 2007 1)=2004
Number of children vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis in 2005*
*= The indicator is part of the results index
Swed
en
Netherl
ands
Italy UK
Norway
1)
Luxe
mbourg
1)
German
y
Portu
gal
Greece
1)USA
Österri
ke1)
Perc
ent
46 TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
21 Resourceconsumptionindex
23 Resultsindex
25 Cost-effectivenessindex
25 Cost-effectivenessmatrix
27 Importanceofvariousweightingsfortheresultsindex
28 Alternativeresultsindexes
2� Alternativecost-effectivenessindexes
30 Populationage80andolderasapercentageoftotalpopulation,2005
31 Percapitacostforhealthcare,2005
31 Increaseinpercapitacostforhealthcare,1��5-2005
32 HealthcareasapercentageofGDP,1�85,1��5and2005
32 Doctorsper1000citizens,2005
33 Nursesper1000citizens,2005
33 Bedsper1000citizens,2005
34 Averageperiodofmedicalcare,2005.Short-termcare
34 Numberofhipoperationsper100000citizens,2005
35 Numberofcataractoperationsper100000citizens,2005
35 Lifeexpectancyofaboybornin2005
36 Lifeexpectancyofagirlbornin2005
36 Prematuredeathbelowage70in2004,men
37 Prematuredeathbelowage70in2004,women
37 Avoidabledeathsin2004,age-standardised
38 Infantmortality,2005
38 Numberofdeathsfromcancerper100000citizensin2004,women
3� Numberofdeathsfromcancerper100000citizensin2004,men
3� Numberofdeathsfromlungcancerper100000citizensin2004,women
40 Numberofdeathsfrombreastcancerper100000citizensin2004
40 Numberofdeathsfromischaemicheartdiseaseper100000citizensin2004,men
41 Numberofdeathsfromischaemicheartdiseaseper100000citizensin2004,women
41 Numberofdeathsfromstrokeper100000citizensin2004,men
42 Numberofdeathsfromstrokeper100000citizensin2004,women
42 Breastcancer,five-yearsurvivalrate,age-standardised
43 Coloncancer,five-yearsurvivalrate,age-standardised
43 Skincancer,five-yearsurvivalrate
44 Salesofantibioticsinoutpatientcare,2003
45 Numberofchildrenvaccinatedagainstmeaslesin2005
45 Numberofchildrenvaccinatedagainstdiphtheria,tetanusandpertussisin2005
Listoffigures
47TheSwedishHealthcareSystem:HowDoesItComparewithOtherEUCountries,theUnitedStatesandNorway?
References
Conference Board of Canada (The). 2007. How Canada Performs. A Report Card on Canada.
Esmail, N. and Walker, M. 2005. How Good is Canadian Health Care. 2005 Report. An Interna-tional Comparision of Health Care Systems. The Fraser Institute.
Exeter, B.P. 2002. WHO to revise its method for ranking health systems. BMJ 324:7331:190.
European Commission. 2005. The contribution of health to the economy in the European Union, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
Health Consumer Powerhouse. 2007. Euro Health Consumer Index 2006.
WHO. 2000. The World Health Report 2000.
Nolte E. and McKee, M. 2005. Does healthcare save lives? Avoidable mortality revisited. London: The Nuffield Trust
Netherlands. n.a. The new care system in the Netherlands: durability, solidarity, choice, quality, efficiency. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.
Saltman, R.B. 2008. Decentralization, re-centralization and future European health policy. The European Journal of Public Health 18:2:104–106; doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn013
Vuorenkoski, L. 2008. Restructuring municipalities and municipal health services in Finland. Eurohealth 13:4.
Witell, Elg (2008) Att skapa index – Metodutveckling och test baserat på öppna jämförelser 2006, Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions.
118 82 Stockholm, Visiting address Hornsgatan 20Telephone 08-452 70 00, Fax 08-452 70 50www.skl.se
June 2008
The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions regularly
publishes data to evaluate cost-effectiveness in sectors for which local
authorities and regions are responsible. The purpose of this report is
to compare the performance of the Swedish healthcare system with
that of other Western industrialised countries.
This report can be ordered at www.skl.se/publikationer, by phoning +46 8 644 71 48 or by faxing to +46 8 644 76 78Domestic calls: Phone 020-31 32 30, Fax 020-31 32 40, ISBN: 978-91-7164-450-3
The Swedish Healthcare System: How Does It Compare with Other EU Countries, the United States and Norway?
Recommended